X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29

The High Court has today held in the case of X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29 that the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) does not authorise an examiner to require a person charged with an indictable Commonwealth offence to answer questions before their trial about the subject matter of the offence.

The plaintiff was charged in November 2010 with three offences related to the trafficking of illegal drugs. Whilst in custody, the plaintiff was served with a summons, issued pursuant to the Act, requiring him to answer questions before an examiner for the purposes of an investigation by the Australian Crime Commission (ACC). 

At the examination, the plaintiff was answered various questions about the subject matter of the offences; however, he refused to answer further questions after the examination was adjourned. The plaintiff was informed that he would be charged with the offence of failing to answer a question that the examiner required him to answer.

High Court

The plaintiff applied to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the ACC from examining him regarding subject matter of the offences. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the examination provisions of the Act were beyond the power of the Commonwealth insofar as they permitted the compulsory examination of a person charged with an indictable offence about the subject matter of the offence. He also sought a declaration that an examination of this sort interfered with his right to a fair trial, and as such contravened Ch III of the Constitution.

By majority, the High Court held that the examination provisions of the Act did not permit an ACC examiner to require a person charged with an offence to answer questions about the subject matter of the offence. In its reasoning, the Court held that if the examination provisions of the Act were interpreted to permit compulsory examination, the result would be a fundamental alteration to the processes of criminal justice, and such an alteration would require express statutory language to be effected. The Court held that examination provisions of the Act did not, expressly or impliedly, effect any such alteration, and so the Court did not need to consider the plaintiff's constitutional arguments.

Make it easy to track Australian legislation relevant to your area of legal expertise by becoming a subscriber to LawTracker. Contact us for full pricing information or to trial the service for free.